I do see where you are coming from, as I considered myself a libertarian for a long time. It was only upon reading the political writings of the reformers that my mind really changed. I now would consider myself a conservative in that I believe the government should conserve values, principles, etc. I would recommend you check out an article entitled
The Pillars of American Conservatism, written by Alfred S. Regnery. It does a great job of defining conservatism as I have come to view it and use it in my day-to-day life. I will provide a brief excerpt below:
The basic foundations of American conservatism can be boiled down to four fundamental concepts. We might call them the four pillars of modern conservatism:
The first pillar of conservatism is liberty, or freedom. Conservatives believe that individuals possess the right to life, liberty, and property, and freedom from the restrictions of arbitrary force. They exercise these rights through the use of their natural free will. That means the ability to follow your own dreams, to do what you want to (so long as you don't harm others) and reap the rewards (or face the penalties). Above all, it means freedom from oppression by government—and the protection of government against oppression. It means political liberty, the freedom to speak your mind on matters of public policy. It means religious liberty—to worship as you please, or not to worship at all. It also means economic liberty, the freedom to own property and to allocate your own resources in a free market.
Conservatism is based on the idea that the pursuit of virtue is the purpose of our existence and that liberty is an essential component of the pursuit of virtue. Adherence to virtue is also a necessary condition of the pursuit of freedom. In other words, freedom must be pursued for the common good, and when it is abused for the benefit of one group at the expense of others, such abuse must be checked. Still, confronted with a choice of more security or more liberty, conservatives will usually opt for more liberty.
The second pillar of conservative philosophy is tradition and order. Conservatism is also about conserving the values that have been established over centuries and that have led to an orderly society. Conservatives believe in human nature; they believe in the ability of man to build a society that respects rights and that has the capacity to repel the forces of evil. Order means a systematic and harmonious arrangement, both within one’s own character and within the commonwealth. It signifies the performance of certain duties and the enjoyment of certain rights within a community.
Order is perhaps more easily understood by looking at its opposite: disorder. A disordered existence is a confused and miserable existence. If a society falls into general disorder, many of its members will cease to exist at all. And if the members of a society are disordered in spirit, the outward order of society cannot long endure. Disorder describes well everything that conservatism is not.
The third pillar is the rule of law. Conservatism is based on the belief that it is crucial to have a legal system that is predictable, that allows people to know what the rules are and enforce those rules equally for all. This means that both governors and the governed are subject to the law. The rule of law promotes prosperity and protects liberty. Put simply, a government of laws and not of men is the only way to secure justice.
The fourth pillar is belief in God. Belief in God means adherence to the broad concepts of religious faith—such things as justice, virtue, fairness, charity, community, and duty. These are the concepts on which conservatives base their philosophy.
Conservative belief is tethered to the idea that there is an allegiance to God that transcends politics and that sets a standard for politics. For conservatives, there must be an authority greater than man, greater than any ruler, king, or government: no state can demand our absolute obedience or attempt to control every aspect of our lives. There must be a moral order, conservatives believe, that undergirds political order. This pillar of conservatism does not mean mixing up faith and politics, and it certainly does not mean settling religious disputes politically. It also does not mean that conservatives have a monopoly on faith, or even that all conservatives are necessarily believers.
Each of the four pillars is closely related to all the others. Liberty, for example, is considered a gift of God and must be protected by the rule of law. The rule of law itself is dependent on the natural law—a transcendent law reflected in every orderly and civilized society, demarcating good and evil. Tradition and order are best reflected by our common law—a law developed over centuries by reasonable people in their everyday lives, which sets the rules for social order consistent with the past. And tradition is an important dimension of belief in God. What could demonstrate tradition and order more fully, for example, than the Old Testament and the history of the Jewish people, or the doctrines of the Christian Church?
This view of American conservatism treads awfully close to the formulations by the Protestant Reformers such as John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Johannes Althusius, etc. The author of the above article stated that "[t]radition and order are best reflected by our common law—a law developed over centuries by reasonable people in their everyday lives, which sets the rules for social order consistent with the past." While I do not necessarily disagree, I would not distinguish this "common law" from the natural law given by God. Natural law (
ius naturale), as defined by God Himself, can be expressed within the "common law" (
ius commune) throughout history. Johannes Althusius understood this correctly, as can be seen in his written works:
A law is both natural and common if the common use of right reason produces it for the necessity and utility of human social life. It, too, can then be called natural law [...] While some distinguish among common law [ius commune], natural law [ius naturale] and the law of nations [ius gentium], others more properly call each of them forms of the [same] natural law [...] Christ himself often called natural law things that are usually called the law of nations. (Dic I.13.11, 18–19)
That is to say, we can look back at past societies (Greek Empire, Roman Empire, etc.) and find expression of the natural law through the common or what is sometimes called customary law. We pull out the natural law through comparing universal laws (I believe this is what was meant by Theodore Beza when he said "
iura divina") to see what is consistent among them. God outlined part of the natural law in the two tables of the Decalogue. However, I believe that the spirit of the natural law goes beyond that and can be seen expressed in the common laws of various civilizations throughout the earth. This makes sense in light of Romans 2:15 where we read "the work of the law is written on their hearts." So regardless of whether or not the Greeks or Romans knew the natural law outlined in the two tables of the Decalogue, they had "the work of the law [...] written on their hearts." This is why we can use the universal concepts found in these ancient civilizations to help us expand and truly define natural law.
You asked in your post "was it not God's intention that His people would be self-governing with only Him as King?" My answer to that is yes. God is king regardless of whether or not we have an earthly king as well. Just like Christ being the head of the church does not mean that we have no spiritual leaders on earth, God being King over us does not mean we cannot have an earthly king. Going back to Althusius, he wrote about the development of political associations in history. In his mind, groups of private associations would form a covenant together in order to form a public association. These public associations would form a covenant together to form larger public associations (provinces, territories, etc.). These larger public associations would form a covenant together to make a country as we know it today. This natural development can be observed throughout the world, but I will use the example of Israel in the Old Testament. How did the Israelites start? They started in the household of Abraham and his wife Sarah. It moved outward to the decendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. This eventually led to the twelve tribes that came out of Jacob. The cities and towns that are developed come under Joshua and the Judges. It is after this that Israel is put together under a king. The kingdom of Israel is ruled by popular sovereignty, no doubt. This is shown in Scripture:
You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall follow, that you may live and inherit the land that the LORD your God is giving you. (Deuteronomy 16:18; ESV)
It is the people of Israel who shall select their judges and officers to govern them. The people of Israel must select judges and officers who will be just, as it is up to them to not pervert justice. Beyond this, we later read of the establishment of king David. This is also evidence of the rule by popular sovereignty:
Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and said, "Behold, we areyour bone and flesh. In times past, when Saul was king over us, it was you who led out and brought in Israel. And the LORD said to you, 'You shall be shepherd of my people Israel, and you shall be prince over Israel.'" So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron, and King David made a covenant with them at Hebron before the LORD, and they anointed David king over Israel. (2 Samuel 5:1-3; ESV)
As can be seen, a political covenant is made between the people of Israel and king David. Now, God had every right to rule His own people. Yet when they requested for a king as the other nations, He gave them Saul without their consent. As we know, Saul was ultimately rejected by the people and replaced with king David, a king chosen by popular sovereignty. Althusius outlined this covenant as a transfer of civil power from the people to a selected magistrate:
This means that, insofar as any commonwealth is divinely instructed by the law of nature has civil power, it can transfer this power to another or to others, who, under the title of kings, princes, consuls, or other magistrates, assume the direction of its common life.
This is no different today. Modern magistarates are in a covenant with the people. The people give them power in order to receive order and protection. However, the covenant is broken when the political ruler becomes a tyrant. John Witte Jr., in his book entitled
The Reformation of Rights, describes Theodore Beza's view of this:
Again, like private contracts of marriage, political covenants that were freely and properly entered into might eventually end through divorce for cause. In a marriage, where one party spiritually and physically deserts the other or betrays the essence of the marriage by committing adultery or inflicting mortal abuse on the other, the innocent party may sue for divorce. Similarly in a political community, Beza continued, where the magistrate deserts his people or betrays the fundamentals of his political office by becoming a tyrant, the people may properly seek to divorce him.
But Just as the dissolution of a private marriage contract through annulment or divorce requires orderly procedures, so does the dissolution of a public political covenant. Disgruntled spouses may not simply walk away from their marriages, and declare themselves divorced or declare on their own that their marriage is annulled. By reason of its consecration by the church and registration by the state, the marriage contract has become a public institution. It transcends the interests of the couple themselves, and implicates the interests of the whole community. The disgruntled spouse must thus file complaints before the appropriate authorities, seek the authorities' intervention and protection if they are being abused, and request a public judgement that the marriage has ended by annulment or divorce, that the guilty spouse must be punished, and the innocent spouse has been liberated. Until such public judgement has been rendered, the parties are bound by their marital contract, which they had entered into "for better or worse."
That is to say, a covenant is entered into between a the population and the magistrate. However, God is also involved in the covenant. If the magistrate becomes a tyrant and breaks the political covenant, then the covenant is now void and rebellion/revolution is permissible. But it helps to define a tyrant. Althusius defined a tyrant as one who violates the fundamental laws and rights (
lex et jura fundamentalis) of the nation, country, territory, etc. or the natural laws and rights (
leges et iura naturali) on which the fundamental laws and rights are based. I would say this is a rather universal undersatnding of what a tyrant actually is.
In conclusion, I am not a libertarian anymore because I do not advocate for maximizing "political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, individual judgment, and self-ownership." I do not advocate for those things because it is the duty of the magistrate to uphold the natural laws and rights of man. This does not permit for a secular understanding of liberty, political freedom, autonomy, etc. The duty of the people is to respect and obey the magistrate up until they are a tyrant. Then it becomes the duty of the people to resist.
